Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[1213]

[Replying to 1213]

So, you would accept a better explanation of why we have the Bible?

That the Romans learned that religion was a good way to exploit people.
The people who didn't believe convinced people to believe, and those believers convinced others?...

I think I would accept better explanation, if there would be one.
The reason why your Roman explanation is irrational is that Jewish teachings are older than Roman rule.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 79 by 1213]

Talk is cheap, 1213 - prove it.

The fact is you cannot:
Before Rome were the Sadducee, their religion was nothing like the Jewish religion today.

The Romans led an insurrection of the Pharisee over the Sadducee, and they were ressurectionist, and saviorist.

The fact that anyone believes the Sadducee were anything like the Jews today reflects a deliberate falsehood. They did not even worship Jehovah.

Unless I am wrong... why don't you show me that what has been taught - that the Jewish religion is unchanged from beyond history.

Like I say, you can not, in fact, before 300BC the people who would be Jewish were polytheistic. After 300 BC you would find their monotheism depressing. It was not until the Romans allowed the bourgeois Pharisee to dominate that anything like modern Judaism came to be.

Unless I'm wrong. Show me I am wrong.

[otseng]

Pretty much, yeah. LOL.

Moderator Final Warning

This post is an unproductive one-liner and is just escalating the problem.

For all, if anyone violates a rule, do NOT comment on it. If you get a warning from a moderator, do NOT comment on it publicly. If someone attacks you, simply report it and let a moderator handle it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 69 by Willum]

That the Romans learned that religion was a good way to exploit people.
The people who didn't believe convinced people to believe, and those believers convinced others?

That Rome kept perfecting religion until it got even Jews paying Roman tithes to blasphemous emperors with defiling coins.

How did it do it, by having the Jews savior arrive, name him Je-Zeus.

This is a fascinating theory. I am just curious, what primary texts are you deriving this theory from? Could you flesh it out in summary form and then demonstrate it by interacting with the sources?


Oh

Je-Zeus

Shouldn't it have been Je-upiter? Since that was the Roman god?

LC

[Willum]

[Replying to post 82 by liamconnor]

Zeus and Jove and Jupiter Deus are the same: Zeus is spelled better Dyeus. Jupiter is Dyupiter. Also Theos, as "Th" is classically pronounced like the French do: "dzeh."
So, no.

Jesus, is Iezeus, is Ay Zeus, to the educated ear.

I am deriving no theory. It is a fact. When Rome went to Britain they immediately started replacing their deities, such as Sulis-Minerva, replacing Sulis. In France they found putting these hybrid deities on coins was effective, and so on.

When they hit Palestine, they replaced their quaint Elyon god of the OT, with an upgrade; suddenly becoming all-powerful like Zeus, and actually becoming Zeus, as Yahu, is YHVH, YHVH was corrupted to become Yahwey, Yahwey is Ioweh, which is Joue, which is Jove.

Or you can tell me why "Jewish" don't worship Elohim/Elyon, Yahu, etc..

So far you haven't done the VERY simple thing, and show that I am wrong.
It's cause you can't.

You may poo-poo my evidence, but you have none at all, but the unprovable claims derived from desperate need rather than history.

[1213]

Before Rome were the Sadducee, their religion was nothing like the Jewish religion today.

The Romans led an insurrection of the Pharisee over the Sadducee, and they were ressurectionist, and saviorist...

Difficult to believe your claims without any evidence. However, Jews may have been many things in history, but still their teachings are old, older than Sadducees, Romans and Pharisees. Books of Moses are the base line for Jews, they are the nation that is formed around the books of Moses that I think are what really defines Jews.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 84 by 1213]

No, no, no.
The Sadducee were what became the Jewish.
Evidence? Look it up!
And to repeat: The verbal history of Judaism is it professes to be older than dirt, the truth is, Jerusalem's religion isn't anything like the stories.

The Sadducees rejected the Oral Law as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Torah as the sole source of divine authority.[11] The written law, in its depiction of the priesthood, corroborated the power and enforced the hegemony of the Sadducees in Judean society.

According to Josephus, the Sadducees believed that:

There is no fate
God does not commit evil
Man has free will; “man has the free choice of good or evil�
They did not have a Messiah
The soul is not immortal; there is no afterlife, and
There are no rewards or penalties after death

The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died.

And you wouldn't have like their religious or ruling practices.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 82 by liamconnor]

So far you haven't done the VERY simple thing, and show that I am wrong.
It's cause you can't.

You may poo-poo my evidence, but you have none at all, but the unprovable claims derived from desperate need rather than history.

I poo-poo nothing. You made a claim; if you have presented evidence elsewhere, I apologize for not following it. Could you direct me to the post where you provide the primary evidence upon which it rests? Again, I am not saying it is wrong. I am asking for reasons to believe. But "summaries" do not demonstrate. Demonstrations deal with ancient texts.

Jesus, is Iezeus, is Ay Zeus, to the educated ear.

Interesting. Forgive my poor education, I have some linguistic questions.

Ἰησοῦς is the Greek of the Aramaic Yeshua, which in English is Joshua. In the 3rd c. B.C.E. the Greek translation of the Bible was composed, and the Greek name for the Hebrew Joshua was Ἰησοῦς. But does this not predate Roman expansionism into palestine (via Pompey)? It would seem the name Ἰησοῦς was very common, and everywhere else meant Joshua, not Zeus. Or are you claiming that the translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were also claiming that Joshua was a Zeus figure?

Again, it is curious to me why the Romans would call this fictitious figure Ἰησοῦς (Aysous), and not spell it more exact? Would it not be a better Greek rendition to make it AYZEUS, than AYSOUS?


Excited to hear your responses!

L.C.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 85 by Willum]

Evidence? Look it up!

I hope this is not a typical argument from you....obviously no one's credit could last very long with these kinds of replies.


Is it not the responsibility of the person making a claim to back that claim up with evidence!

If not, I can simply turn back on you and say, "I looked it up. All the evidence says you are wrong."


At some point, we have to provide evidence, no?

So, what is your evidence for your theory that Christianity was an invention of Imperial Rome?

[Willum]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Liam - So, in the very post you are complaining about, I posted the beliefs of the Sadducee, that is evidence that the Sadducee didn't believe anything like the Pharisee or Christians. At least by way their being other religions with more similar beliefs.

So, I posted the proof - and you ignored it, sans review. That's why it is better if you do look it up, because you won't believe anything I say or post - as you have just demonstrated.

We have a discontinuous religion, that only has lip service to being continuous, demonstrated.

That discontinuity was introduced by the Pharisee insurrection led by the Romans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jew ... Background, demonstrated on review.

It also demonstrates that the Greeks and Romans had religious rights to Jove and the Caesars right in front of Jewish temples.

Actually, since there is no mention of Jesus during this time, you may be assured he wasn't there either.

We have a man who was not endorsed by anyone but the Romans, with no records of him during his life, demonstrated.

We have this Jesus advocating paying blasphemous tithes to blasphemous men and government with coins that would make any Pharisaic or Sadducee Jew unclean even to touch the tithe-coins, demonstrated.

The NT advocates following this Jovian government, because it is the one that God installed. Blasphemy.

Thus Jesus was a product of the Roman Empire, manufactured after the fact.

Is that good enough, or do I need to prove this all again?

Or are going to claim this isn't proof?